Are liberals going too far?

[castille]

On request of the moderator Mathieu, I've re-written this in a more serious tone.


I am concerned to see the advancement of what we could call the "liberal agenda" in society. (Agenda meaning their goals, aims, etc)

It started off with FDR's reforms. Good enough, so we give a few bucks to help poor people get off their feet.

But today, I think FDR would be turning in his grave. The liberal agenda is starting to show the same signs of ignorance, mass hysteria, and Spanish Inquisition tactics. In a way, liberalism has become a Christian clone, fighting for a difference cause.

We all know about political correctness. Its politically incorrect to be a middle aged white male with an office job, its un-PC to eat meat or wear fur, its un-PC to wink at a woman.

Now I don't mind if the political correctness police stick to their own kind, but the fact is, they are backed by the slowly-liberal government, who are making all kinds of laws to promote political correctness. Today you can be arrested for non-PC behaviour. I agree that a boss raping his secretary should be illegal, but if the boss winks at the secretary, he could be facing sexual harrassment charges. Maybe we should also ban smiling at a woman?


People complain about corporations, but do they also realise the millions paid out by corporations for peoples stupidity? In some countries if you spill hot coffee on your hands, you wipe it off. In America, you sue whoever sold you the coffee, and claim "you shouldnt have made it so hot". Maybe we should ban hot drinks from now on? McDonalds has to put giant warning labels on their coffee: "WARNING - HOT!" for the benefit of the idiots out there.


Oh, and don't forget about propaganda. Several years ago, a federal panel states that the word "owls" should be banned from textbooks. Why? Because owls are taboo to Navajo tribes, and any mention might upset them (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0506/p17s01-lepr.html).

Oh wait, why not ban words such as "founding fathers" because its offensive to some ignorant feminists? Already done.

Shouldn't we also ban the word "sea" because its offensive to people who don't live near the sea? Already done.


Ironically, it seems the same people - liberal-minded folk - who speak out against government oppression, are in fact encouraging oppression.

[The Black Flag]

They actually put warning labels on coffee? Wow, that's stupid. I'm an anarchist, I'm aaaaaaaaall about anti-government and fighting against oppression, but when you're agenda is stepping on other people *even if the other people are oppressors* well, there is still oppression. Besides that, just don't be an idiot..I mean, coffee is MEANT TO BE HOT, MORON! Fuck the warning. There is one thing that pisses me off more than government oppression, and that's stupidity and ignorance, don't be a fucking moron, and fuck being PC, it's for pussies.

[castille]

If you look at the rim, or underneath the McDonalds coffee cups (different countries put them in difference places), you can see the words CAUTION - HOT.

Additionally, on Siemens irons, you also see warnings signs that the iron is hot. Apparently some German guy sued Siemens because he burnt himself on irons, so the company is taking extra precautions (unless someone invents a "temperature neutral" iron).

[Packratt]

Yeah, those darn liberals! They are "FORCING" companies to put warning labels on things!!!

Hmm, let's use the neocon argument... The "liberals" aren't forcing anyone to do anything, the corporations put the labels on their goods BY THEIR OWN CHOICE. They could always CHOOSE to refuse to lable their products just like you believe the workers can CHOOSE not to work for unsustainably low wages.

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,)
Yeah, those darn liberals! They are "FORCING" companies to put warning labels on things!!!

Hmm, let's use the neocon argument... The "liberals" aren't forcing anyone to do anything, the corporations put the labels on their goods BY THEIR OWN CHOICE. They could always CHOOSE to refuse to lable their products just like you believe the workers can CHOOSE not to work for unsustainably low wages.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

no, they put them there because liberal democrat trial lawyers have won excessively large lawsuits against business who didn't "warn" the consumer that the product works as intended...

[ruiner]

lawyers are neither democrats or republican. They are hell beasts intent on devouring the souls of the young

[Paavo]

99% of all warning labels are stupid and unnecessary. If people don't know they shouldn't eat a nail or microwave their cat, then they're too stupid to go outside and buy that product. Period.

[Mia]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
On request of the moderator Mathieu, I've re-written this in a more serious tone.


I am concerned to see the advancement of what we could call the "liberal agenda" in society. (Agenda meaning their goals, aims, etc)

It started off with FDR's reforms. Good enough, so we give a few bucks to help poor people get off their feet.

But today, I think FDR would be turning in his grave. The liberal agenda is starting to show the same signs of ignorance, mass hysteria, and Spanish Inquisition tactics. In a way, liberalism has become a Christian clone, fighting for a difference cause.

We all know about political correctness. Its politically incorrect to be a middle aged white male with an office job, its un-PC to eat meat or wear fur, its un-PC to wink at a woman.

Now I don't mind if the political correctness police stick to their own kind, but the fact is, they are backed by the slowly-liberal government, who are making all kinds of laws to promote political correctness. Today you can be arrested for non-PC behaviour. I agree that a boss raping his secretary should be illegal, but if the boss winks at the secretary, he could be facing sexual harrassment charges. Maybe we should also ban smiling at a woman?


People complain about corporations, but do they also realise the millions paid out by corporations for peoples stupidity? In some countries if you spill hot coffee on your hands, you wipe it off. In America, you sue whoever sold you the coffee, and claim "you shouldnt have made it so hot". Maybe we should ban hot drinks from now on? McDonalds has to put giant warning labels on their coffee: "WARNING - HOT!" for the benefit of the idiots out there.


Oh, and don't forget about propaganda. Several years ago, a federal panel states that the word "owls" should be banned from textbooks. Why? Because owls are taboo to Navajo tribes, and any mention might upset them (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0506/p17s01-lepr.html).

Oh wait, why not ban words such as "founding fathers" because its offensive to some ignorant feminists? Already done.

Shouldn't we also ban the word "sea" because its offensive to people who don't live near the sea? Already done.


Ironically, it seems the same people - liberal-minded folk - who speak out against government oppression, are in fact encouraging oppression.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Castille, I'm not taking you to task here. I'm sure you didn't know this - but there is a lot more to that McDonald's case than that!

1) yes, coffee is supposed to be hot, but not so hot that it causes 3rd degree burns if spilled on oneself.

2) That woman had to have skin grafts and physical therapy to be able to walk again

3) McDonald's had been warned REPEATEDLY, prior to this, that their coffee was too hot and to turn it down. Unfortunately, McDonald's didn't care until it hit their pocketbook.

Sorry to ruin your soundbite, but that one is not a good example ;-)

[Mia]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,)
Yeah, those darn liberals! They are "FORCING" companies to put warning labels on things!!!

Hmm, let's use the neocon argument... The "liberals" aren't forcing anyone to do anything, the corporations put the labels on their goods BY THEIR OWN CHOICE. They could always CHOOSE to refuse to lable their products just like you believe the workers can CHOOSE not to work for unsustainably low wages.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

no, they put them there because liberal democrat trial lawyers have won excessively large lawsuits against business who didn't "warn" the consumer that the product works as intended...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>



Who said the trial lawyers were democrats?

Also why is everyone so ignorant of the real facts surrounding the case before using it in all kinds of ways?

[thrillofitall]

blame the liberals for your being anal!

the coffee has nothing to do with liberals. just because people are idiots and sue for burning themselves... that has nothing to do with liberals. that has entirely to do with the people who sue. companies are obligated to put warnings like that on coffee, or else they would be losing tons of money to jerks trying to make a quick buck.

[Paavo]

It's all about one thing;
"common sense". That's what's missing in the court cases in the US (and as the US is setting the example as usual, soon in the rest of the western world, probably).

If someone sued a company -- for something as stupid as coffee being too hot -- in Finland, the judge would snicker a bit and leave it at that.

[tman_ndsu08]

One thing i can't stand about socialism is their idea of labor.

Labor is nothing more than someone selling their service to an employeer. The employeer is buying your services, in other words. The buyer is the one with the rights. The sellers are the ones who have to compete for the buyers. Get it?

So a buyer isn't going to buy something that's too expensive.

[Leopard]

actually, tman, they both have 'equal' rights - neither HAS to agree to the transaction

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)
lawyers are neither democrats or republican. They are hell beasts intent on devouring the souls of the young<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

wrong, the majority of the trial lawyers support the party of the impeached liar... follow the money...

lawyers aren't hell beasts... hell beasts are better than that

[Packratt]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
actually, tman, they both have 'equal' rights - neither HAS to agree to the transaction<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I'm realy tired of this foolish statement... It's the SAME THING as someone telling you that you are free to CHOOSE not to pay taxes. Sure, you might end up in jail and dry fucked up the ass, but you're free to choose that if you feel taxes are worse.

Sure, I'm free to refuse jobs, but that means I and my family starve and die on the street in your little utopian slavestate project. Yeah, woohoo, what fricken freedom that is. Hoofuckingrah.

[Leopard]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
actually, tman, they both have 'equal' rights - neither HAS to agree to the transaction<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I'm realy tired of this foolish statement... It's the SAME THING as someone telling you that you are free to CHOOSE not to pay taxes. Sure, you might end up in jail and dry fucked up the ass, but you're free to choose that if you feel taxes are worse.

Sure, I'm free to refuse jobs, but that means I and my family starve and die on the street in your little utopian slavestate project. Yeah, woohoo, what fricken freedom that is. Hoofuckingrah.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Packratt, what makes you think you are God? Do you have some power to change 'real world' consequences/costs?

You say "Sure, I'm free to refuse jobs, but that means I and my family starve and die on the street ..." and that 'choice' isn't really freedom...

lets take a very real example:
You and your family live in the forest, away from society/civilization. You are free to refuse to hunt/pick berries/whatever but it means that you and your family starve and die. Isn't that the truth? Isn't it true that you MUST work in some fashion to survive? Is this the problem you actually have, that people MUST work to survive? Keep beating your head against the wall, you can't change the 'real world'...

Just be honest and say it "You want OTHER people to feed and clothe you so you don't have to work - its too hard."

[Mathieu]

So you are free of not working, but you should take the consequences, but In a country where everyone can leave if they want , tax are theft ???


I see double standards here ...

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
On request of the moderator Mathieu, I've re-written this in a more serious tone.


I am concerned to see the advancement of what we could call the "liberal agenda" in society. (Agenda meaning their goals, aims, etc)

It started off with FDR's reforms. Good enough, so we give a few bucks to help poor people get off their feet.

But today, I think FDR would be turning in his grave. The liberal agenda is starting to show the same signs of ignorance, mass hysteria, and Spanish Inquisition tactics. In a way, liberalism has become a Christian clone, fighting for a difference cause.

We all know about political correctness. Its politically incorrect to be a middle aged white male with an office job, its un-PC to eat meat or wear fur, its un-PC to wink at a woman.

Now I don't mind if the political correctness police stick to their own kind, but the fact is, they are backed by the slowly-liberal government, who are making all kinds of laws to promote political correctness. Today you can be arrested for non-PC behaviour. I agree that a boss raping his secretary should be illegal, but if the boss winks at the secretary, he could be facing sexual harrassment charges. Maybe we should also ban smiling at a woman?


People complain about corporations, but do they also realise the millions paid out by corporations for peoples stupidity? In some countries if you spill hot coffee on your hands, you wipe it off. In America, you sue whoever sold you the coffee, and claim "you shouldnt have made it so hot". Maybe we should ban hot drinks from now on? McDonalds has to put giant warning labels on their coffee: "WARNING - HOT!" for the benefit of the idiots out there.


Oh, and don't forget about propaganda. Several years ago, a federal panel states that the word "owls" should be banned from textbooks. Why? Because owls are taboo to Navajo tribes, and any mention might upset them (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0506/p17s01-lepr.html).

Oh wait, why not ban words such as "founding fathers" because its offensive to some ignorant feminists? Already done.

Shouldn't we also ban the word "sea" because its offensive to people who don't live near the sea? Already done.


Ironically, it seems the same people - liberal-minded folk - who speak out against government oppression, are in fact encouraging oppression.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

No, the so-called 'liberal agenda' doesn't go far enough. That's the problem with it -- it just doesn't go far enough. But in the meantime, it's better than the conservative agenda, so I'll tend to support it.

As to your 'specifics,' you claim to cite a number of unconnected 'abuses' that have no common theme other than your dislike of them, that have no rational connection with anyone's political agenda, that claim things that have not happened, and that seem to constitute nothing more than form a shaky platform from which you can spew vitriol at some nebulous thing you call the 'liberal agenda.' The Founding Fathers must be turning in their graves that what you spout could be considered political discussion in the country that they founded.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,)
Yeah, those darn liberals! They are "FORCING" companies to put warning labels on things!!!

Hmm, let's use the neocon argument... The "liberals" aren't forcing anyone to do anything, the corporations put the labels on their goods BY THEIR OWN CHOICE. They could always CHOOSE to refuse to lable their products just like you believe the workers can CHOOSE not to work for unsustainably low wages.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

no, they put them there because liberal democrat trial lawyers have won excessively large lawsuits against business who didn't "warn" the consumer that the product works as intended...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

No, they put the labels on because we are a litiginous society and tend to sue at the drop of a hat. Being a trial lawyer and making many bucks off of such a tendency has nothing to do with one's political ideology. Look around, most of the civil suits for damages brought in this country are brought by -- good old capitalist companies. Hey, it's the capitalist, American way to sue.

But, if you want to get away from all of those lawsuits, support laws to prohibit lawsuits and instead regulate all behavior strictly. That is much more in keeping with how things have been done in most societies. True, many of us will fight against such regimentation -- but a regimented society certainly would offer an altenative to a litiginous society.

[Anniee]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
So you are free of not working, but you should take the consequences, but In a country where everyone can leave if they want , tax are theft ??? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Sure it is, there's no definition by which taxation isn't theft. The problem with "love it or leave it" is that there will be no choice but to be taxed no matter where one goes, so the choice that remains is to be robbed or not to exist at all. Unless you know of a place that doesn't rob its people; if so I'd like to hear about it heh. Indeed there are few surer things than death and taxes Personally I'd be happy just to minimize them.

And yeah, survival requires some type of work; the consequences of doing absolutely no work are going to remain bad in the real world (unless there is someone willing to do it all for you; you're still immoral if you try to FORCE others to do it for you though)...I don't see how that conflicts with the second part of the statement or creates a double standard whatsoever. The person who married and brought children into it made that choice, didn't they? And no one forced them or coerced them to. And presumably they knew they'd have to do some type of work in order to provide for that family (whether for a business or by growing food, hunting, etc?) I dunno, it seems pretty much common sense. They kind of put their own limitations on themselves by choosing a family (and in no way do I blame people for that, I think family is a wonderful thing.) I'm just saying.